This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://www.newsweek.com/video-appears-to-show-new-ice-shooting-in-minneapolis-11411971
Ice shooting round 2 has kicked off. Numerous rumors already flying around but will be a bit before we have facts I imagine.
Red jacket woman on the far side seems to be filming, her clip'll likely provide a lot more clarity.
Does seem crazy that 5 or so guys couldn't better-restrain the perp, though if he did indeed pull a gun as people are claiming then it probably justifies the shoot.
Here's her clip: https://files.catbox.moe/sp296e.mp4
edit: the same video that @4doorsmorewhores linked
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like there were two perps. But after watching both angles I really can't tell a damn thing about the shooting.
More options
Context Copy link
Here's the other angle, it seems much more egregious
https://xcancel.com/anythingelsegg/status/2015130851764318288
It definitely seems a lot less defensible than Good did from the footage - having watched both angles of this shooting, I'm going to say that unless footage comes out of the arrestee drawing/firing a weapon, this was an awful shoot. From the footage, it isn't possible to tell if he drew a weapon; to my eyes, he seems unarmed in both (but to be fair, I also can't see which officer shot him).
The only reason I'm putting this caveat in place at all is due to around ~1:00 in the video; from what I can tell, there is a gunshot, all agents recoil, then two more gunshots and the arrestee drops. If the first gunshot was from the arrestee, that provides an adequate excuse for the officer(s) to shoot him in self defense.
Struggling with the cops while armed is a terrible idea. If I struggled with the cops while armed and was shot (while not agitating for a popular cause with media backing) , I wouldn't expect anyone to give a damn.
The proper thing to do if you are looking to obstruct police officers while exercising your second amendment right is to peacefully and respectfully submit to arrest. Guns make people jumpy, even if they shouldn't be, even if it's a mistake, you're still dead.
More options
Context Copy link
If the decedent first shot at LEO, then that isn’t “an adequate excuse” but fully justified.
He didn't, though; his gun is taken from him by the gray-jacketed agent just before the first shot is fired, I believe by the agent roughly center of frame in the light-colored jacket.
I don’t know how you can tell that. Looks like trying to see a fumble in a scrum.
People on X and other forums zoomed in on video from the first side e.g. so you can see the gray-jacketed agent talking the gun. In the second video from the reverse angle you can identify that agent and while you can't see what he's doing, you can match it up with the first video and figure out he's got the dead guy's gun when the agent in the middle draws and fires.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, yes, agreed.
Good stuff. Honestly hope there is body cam footage. Would help a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"This definitely seems a lot less defensible, besides the part that might make it far more defensible, which I can't tell one way from the other in the video" is certainly a way to form an conclusion.
I mean, given that I was all over the Good thread defending the shoot, I wanted to at least leave my impression of this one. I can't see if there was a weapon on the arrestee, but it doesn't appear so from my viewing. If evidence comes out that shows a weapon, I've pre-committed to changing my mind, but as it is now, I think the ICE officers were wrong.
Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be something like this:
Given that I attempted to analyze the evidence presented and form an opinion of it based on the videos, I find your statement kind of rude; I tried to clearly indicate what I could definitively tell and what I could not, so people could understand where my opinion came from and understand where I was uncertain, and what would change my mind on it. I suppose next time I should just say "lol ICE obviously evil" and leave it at that.
And basing your judgement on unclear video evidence, with potentially contradictory evidence, when you yourself note the gaps, it is what you are receiving a raised eyebrow for.
And I find ignoring the conclusions of one's own analysis, such as how the cited evidence does not support a conclusion is but carrying on as if it did, also rude. Rude towards the persons who will be accused of murder regardless of what clearer evidence might show, but also rude towards other readers trying to come to conclusions.
Maybe we should form a rude club.
If you want, but that too would be rude.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, yes, what else can one do? "Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably. It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.
Refrain from judgement until you have sufficient information to reach a sound conclusion. If you can identify key variables that would radically change your conclusion, start there.
This is all the more important in an information environment known to be contested by people who want to shape your first impression and conclusions regardless of ultimate accuracy.
Because the 'key evidence' in question isn't evidence to change a mind, but to justify the conclusion one way or another in the first place.
There is a term for making a conclusion before you have the evidence for it, and it is 'assuming the conclusion.' This is a bad practice because it triggers fallacies and psychological biases that lead people to interpret later information in ways that confirm the first judgement..
That is a bar low enough to trip over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those seem like valid observations to me.
Let's see Paul Allen's conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link
You can literally see the agent draw his gun and shoot the guy in the back. I'm not sure what part of this you think is defensible.
Edit: @ minute 1:00 you can see the agent in the middle reach and pull his gun from his holster. The victim appears to be kneeling resisting arrest with multiple agents holding him down. At minute 1:01 that agent points his gun at the victim, and then it is blocked from view by another agent, milliseconds later you hear shots. The victim is still on his knees, it looks like one hand is supporting himself on the ground. His other hand is by his side.
The question isn't my thought, but Zephyr's thought- which notes major gaps in the evidence ('it isn't possible to tell if he drew a weapon,' the 1:00 mark which is compatible with a defensible shoot) that undercuts its value as evidence to form an opinion off of.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
I have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot. I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it. I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the decedent shot first, then shooting him in the back is very reasonable since there were agents in all directions. Lethal force need not be solely for protection of yourself but also for others.
Here are some stills
/images/17692879616745007.webp
/images/1769287962086671.webp
You can’t see the decedent’s arms or hands so you can’t tell what the decedent was doing.
It doesn’t mean the LEO had a justification but it also doesn’t mean they didn’t. It does mean that based on the current evidence it is indeterminate and we ought to wait for more evidence to emerge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure why this is relevant it's almost a non-sequitor, look at that video and tell me who had a gun drawn. I cannot see the victim with the gun but i can see the ice agent draw his and then fire the first shot.
I mean the fact that the other ICE agents didn't seem to react with shock and 'dude what the fuck did you do' indicates that some justification was present for the shooting- we have plenty of evidence that they interpret use of force rules more broadly than the cops in general, and very little that they operate random death squads.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That still seems impossible to tell if he drew a weapon or not. It seems like all the agents back off prior to a first shot suggesting something but really impossible to be definitive. Hopefully there is a body cam.
This one seems like a bad shoot but I really can't tell anything. I'm not even sure I know who shot first. I see someone draw their gun, but their arm seems weirdly angled for them to be firing in the deceased's direction. When I watched the video from the other angle I thought maybe someone was shooting from within the building behind them.
I'm someone who generally sides with police and thought Babbitt and Good were both good shoots. It's a harder sell when you have several men on top of the deceased. If they saw a gun, the simpler thing would be for one of the men on top of him to restrain his hands or to grab it themselves. Shooting him while there were still people holding onto him is reckless unless there was really imminent danger we don't see on the cameras.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I watched the whole video.
Self-linking may be gauche, but what I wrote about the Renee Good video seems bang on for this as well.
The videographer gives us a couple dozen "what the fuck"s and "oh my god"s. After the gnashing of teeth, we get the performative righteousness slogan; "You're killing US!"
Us? Us?
Lady, did you you just get shot? Or did the dead guy who got shot get shot?
The "us" is the tribe, the team, the cause. The videographer gets to self-identify as an innocent victim but also gets to go on living. She will receive accolades and tribute from the other members of the tribe for her volume and repetitive efforts.
Reminds me of Lebron James's "We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes."
This would be consistent with progressives having a stronger sense of asabiyyah than conservatives, akin to how blacks like James have a stronger sense of ethnonarcissism than other racial groups (especially whites, who don't appear to exhibit any).
She is now a Stunning and Brave survivor who now has to courageously fight the Trauma of this event for the rest of her life. Women have always been the primary victims of men getting shot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's pics of the supposed gun... but it's a P320, which ICE agents have carried (though I believe current issue is a Glock)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link